Tax

M White Ltd v Revenue & Customs

[2006] UKVAT V19820VAT & Duties Tribunal2006

Get the AI brief for this case

Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.

Quick orient — first passages from judgment

This appeal against a decision of the Respondents with respect to a surcharge assessment dated the 16 September 2005 in the sum of �1,965.11 and being a reasonable excuse appeal as defined by rule 2 of the Value Added Tax Tribunals Rules 1986 as amended coming on for hearing this day

And upon hearing Mr J White for the Appellant and Mr R Mansell of the Solicitor's office for HM Revenue and Customs for the Respondents

And the Appellant and the Respondents by their said representatives stating pursuant to the rule 30(8) of the said Rules as amended that they do not require the said decision to be recorded in a written document in accordance with rule 30(1) of the said Rules

This tribunal finds that the Appellant did despatch the VAT shown on its return for period 07/05 at such a time and in such a manner that it was reasonable to expect that it would be received by the Respondents by close of business on 31 August 2005

Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.

Read the full judgment elsewhere

Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.

More Tax cases

Ferguson & Anor v Revenue and Customs (STAMP DUTY LAND TAX - residential property - whether paddock was part of garden or grounds of dwelling - paddock was part of grounds)

[2026] UKFTT TC 238

MWL International Ltd & Anor v Revenue and Customs (NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS - agreement with inspector of taxes that certain cars would be "pooled cars" for NICs purposes if various conditions satisfied - HMRC subsequently sought to collect NICs retrospectively - whether HMRC estopped from doing so - whether the FTT had jurisdiction to decide whether Appellants had legitimate expectation that decisions would not be retrospective)

[2026] UKUT TCC 62

BGC Services Holdings LLP v Revenue and Customs (Determinations under Reg 80 of the PAYE Regs - whether it appeared to HMRC that there may be tax payable)

[2026] UKFTT TC 558

Best Cosmetics Ltd v Revenue and Customs (IMPORT VAT - Postponed VAT Accounting - importer not VAT registered - post-clearance demand notices issued for unpaid VAT - no evidence that postponed VAT was accounted for)

[2026] UKFTT TC 236

Ivey v Revenue and Customs (Strike Out - Jurisdiction)

[2026] UKFTT TC 233

Revenue and Customs v Electric Mobility Euro Ltd & Anor (Discovery assessments - extended time limit assessments - penalty for inaccuracy in a return - deliberate inaccuracy - whether deliberate inaccuracy necessarily involves dishonesty - whether HMRC required to specifically plead and prove dishonesty - whether the FTT erred in failing to explain how the appellant's conduct might not involve dishonesty)

[2026] UKUT TCC 37

Common Room

Discussion

0 comments · About the Common Room →

No comments yet — start the discussion.

Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.

This case is reproduced verbatim from the public judgment published by The National Archives under the UK Government's Open Government Licence v3.0. If you appear in this case and believe it should not be published — for example because your conviction was quashed on appeal, you have statutory anonymity, or for other privacy reasons — request removal here.

Tax

M White Ltd v Revenue & Customs

[2006] UKVAT V19820VAT & Duties Tribunal2006

Cite this case in OSCOLA →

Get the AI brief for this case

Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.